Neurobiology and Behavior, Week 3

For this week, I took at look at Jonah Lehrer's book entitled Proust Was a Neuroscientist, which posits and explicates the notion that great neurobiological discoveries were already woven into the text and art of individuals like Gertrude Stein, Cezanne, Walt Whitman, and Proust. My attention was drawn to his book, which I had wanted to read for a while, as I stumbled across his Feb. 5th article entitled "Borges Was a Neuroscientist" in The Frontal Cortex. I find the general thesis very compelling - that poets and artists are practitioners of "loopy science" in making sets of observations, generating conclusions, and constructing experiments of mind, aesthetic, and text. Lehrer, on Whitman, writes about his investigative poetic and reflective strategies: "Whitman got this theory of bodily feelings from his investigations of himself. All Whitman wanted to do in Leaves of Grass was put 'a person, a human being (myself, in the later half of the Nineteenth Century, in America) freely, fully and truly on record.' And so the poet turned himself into an empiricist, a lyricist of his own experience. As Whitman wrote in the preface to Leaves of Grass, 'You shall stand by my side to look in the mirror with me.'" Whitman identified Professor Grobstein's theory that "brain = behavior" indirectly as he textually acknowledges the inextricability of body and mind, as "he was the first poet to write poems in which the flesh was not a stranger." Lehrer suggests that even the formalist stylings of Whitman's verse - his "unmetered form" - functions as a manifestation of his neurobiological findings and "the urges of his anatomy."

In the short article "Borges was a Neuroscientist," Lehrer reviews neuroscientist Rodrigo Quian Quiroga's new homage to Borges, which praises the writer's neurobiological intuition (excerpt below).

In the story of Funes, Borges described very precisely the problems of distorted memory capacities well before neuroscience caught up...In a study using electrodes to probe the hippocampus in epileptic patients for clinical reasons, we identified a type of neuron that fires in response to particular abstract concepts. For example, one neuron in a patient fired only in recognition of different pictures of the actress Jennifer Aniston; another responded only to images of another celebrity, Halle Berry. It is thus possible that these neurons link perception and memory by creating the abstract encoding we use to store memories -- especially considering that we tend to remember concepts and forget irrelevant details. If these neurons are lacking, the ability to generate abstractions may be limited, leading to pathologies such as autism or characters like Funes.

Even without this scientific knowledge, Borges's intuitive description is sharp: Funes, he wrote, was "virtually incapable of general, platonic ideas ... His own face in the mirror, his own hands, surprised him every time he saw them ... To think is to ignore (or forget) differences, to generalize, to abstract. In the teeming world of Ireneo Funes there was nothing but particulars."

If Borges and Proust have stamped out certain neurobiological processes of memory from their own observations and from their own human experiences, how should neuroscientists treat visual art, poetry, fiction? If many answers to biological questions have rested on the shelves of the library, what is the role of text in neurobiology? Should neuroscientists, in search of certain observations about the brain, turn to the literature that has already tackled the problem, and use art as a starting point?

Last week's discussion introduced us to "Spaghetti Bowl Model" and prior to this class, I haven't ever thought of the nervous system as a network of input-output boxes. How much is being simplified in this network? By claiming that the brain consists of a box that receives stimuli and generates responses, what are we losing? What about that other "scientific stuff"?

In that sense, what even constitutes a stimulus? A biological/chemical internal change? An external change? Something physical, emotional, etc? What is mental stimulation? What happens when we learn? Is the acquisition of knowledge a stimulus?  Does that mean standardized testing/aptitude tests and writing papers are our generated responses?

For me, the issue here is the simplicity of the system.  I do see the convenience and value of such a system, but at the same time, I feel as though, it is too simple and that it undermines the complexity of what our brains can actually do – what we can do, as humans or organisms or whatever.  Life may be a series of stimuli and response, but I believe it has to coexist and blend into a cultural and social setting.

In our discussion on Thursday, what I found most interesting/confusing is the idea that our brains "generate output to get input". I have to say that the "flirting" really does not look like a good example for this notion: there has too be someone - or something - that makes us want to flirt with, and that is an input. I think breathing might be a better example for this statement. However, we might as well say, we breathe because our cells are alive - in a highly regulated microenvironment. From a material perspective, can we say that nervous system can generate output spontaneously under certain circumstances?

Of course, the techonology has not been developed enough for us to retain the bioactivity of a nervous system in vitro to directly observe this matter. But from what we know in the molecular biology, given the right chemicals, neurons can and will be activated by the electro-chemical gradient across the membrane. In this sense, there really isn't any output that is not generated by input - if we think that "certain circumstance" as an input.

I have been thinking about the "it's all brain" argument and I am wondering how the legal system would be transformed if the majority of society accepted the Dickinsonian perspective.  If everything in life were a construction of our brains, then a sense of right versus wrong, the notion of justice and fairness, would merely be construed as constructions. Serial killers would be pardoned merely on the fact that their brains had constructed the crime.  They would not be sentenced to the death penalty or to life in prison because the defense would easily argue that it was because of their brains that they possessed no control over their actions.  Everything could be tried on the basis of insanity or a chemical imbalance or a result of some improper or just unusual or even usual proceedings of the brain.  The prosecution would have no right to say that their minds were polluted because the suspect would be presumed to have no mind, have no will power, have no control, and have only brain.  When considering the legal system and how it functions, it seems clear to me that the majority of society accepts the brain and mind model.  It is clear that the majority of society accepts the premise that we have brains, but that we also have minds that direct us to make crucial and significant decisions.  When you hear about serial killers, rapists, robbers, etc. you do not generally hear the media and society attributing this behavior to the brain, but to the person, the individual, the whole package.  You hear about how the person is sick, disgusting, disturbed, etc. Why do we rarely say that their brain must be sick?  There is something about these "criminals" that makes them different from the rest of the "normal" individuals whom adhere to societal laws.  If we were to say, yes, it is all brain, then can we really blame those people whose brains are steering them in the "wrong" direction?  I think there has to be something deeper - something not so physical and concrete that drives morality.  We cannot just offer people a cop out for crime.  Yeah, he shot that guy, but what can we do?  It was just his brain, just a series of inputs and outputs that drove that action?  How are we to control that?  I argue that it is not that simple and if it is, the majority of society does not agree that it is.  I think the majority of society thinks that there is a mind, that there is an element of control we have over ourselves, over our brain.  If we accepted that everything is a construction of the brain and that everyone is unique, with a unique brain, then how could we establish rules of right versus wrong and how could we ever come to any conclusions on morality and shared human values.  You think about how often people fail to live up to societal values and it is crazy to think that maybe it is really not them, and not their fault, but their brains' fault.  Can we blame the brain?   

I found it quiet disturbing that disciplines such as anthropology, psychology, etc., are forced to adopt the linear science model in order to gain legitimacy. Science is about making new discoveries, and learning new things. Its focus should not be about simply regurgitating facts. Sometimes times people appear to waste time trying to prove and re-prove things that are well established. We should want to search out what is new and unknown and strive for a better understanding of what we observe.

        Our model of the nervous system appears to have become more complete but it has a way to go. Our model can account for the basic underlying structure in that all creatures are able to get and receive inputs from outputs.  It does not do a very good job of accounting for marked differences between different organisms. The model needs to be able to explain what separates organisms from one another. What allows humans to communicate at a more advanced level then amphibians? We have the same underlying structures and we both receive inputs and outputs.  Is it more than the size of the brain?
 

 After our discussion on Thursday, it was a little hard to accept the fact that there are some outputs that do not have an input in the nervous system. This may be due to my long-held view that for every output there must have been an input. It might be possible that breathing occurs without an input, but to me it seems as though the input is just not consciously recognized. And what about instincts? Is there some unconscious trigger? Or does it really happen on its own? In my psychology class we talked about some evolutionary support for instincts. So does that mean that evolution is the input? Despite my hesitancy to accept this model of the nervous system, I am trying to keep an open mind about this.

On a different note, I found it very fascinating that architecture is everything: that the way neurons, the same neurons in every animal, are connected accounts for the differences between a human and a frog brain. And that within the same species (i.e. humans) the connections vary enough that we are all different.

I also found an interesting podcast about learning and memory that was on NPR’s Science Friday last month.

http://public.npr.org/anon.nprmp3/npr/totn/2010/01/20100108_totn_05.mp3?sc=16&orgId=1&forsearch=0&topicId=1045&_kip_ipx=1512029001-1265590644

 Our "loopy" model of the nervous system works for me! Last week, I was thinking about how the infinite combinations of chemical interactions in the brain allow us all to have personality and thoughts, to be different, and to be individual. This week, we discussed an evolving model of the nervous system opposed to an astimulus/response machine, which, because it is invariant would prohibit individuality. Our evolving model of the NS, with its numerous layers of "boxes" and countless neurons and neuronal connections, supports my previous thoughts about infinite possibilities for the brain.

My only question now is where do "outputs" from within the brain come from? Do impulses, such as desires and needs, other emotions, and thoughts, come from permanent evolutionary stores? If so, what triggers them to go off? Wouldn't environmental factors, which affect emotions and thoughts, act as stimuli to these outputs from within the brain, and thus be external inputs? Aren't all "outputs" caused by subconscious "inputs", like evolutionary instincts, chemical interactions in the brain requiring us to breath or causing us to become hungry?

 I had one big question during and after our discussion of the nervous system: which comes first, input or output? If we began with a model in which an input generates an output, obviously the input precedes the output, even if multiple inputs yield the same output or a single input gives rise to multiple outputs. Once you throw in the features that some inputs don’t result in any output or that some outputs happen spontaneously without any input, things get complicated. For instance, how do we know that the inputs that don’t generate outputs aren’t generating outputs we can’t/haven’t observe? How do we know that those “spontaneous outputs” aren’t the result of inputs we can’t/haven’t observed? While the model we talked about in class is “less wrong” than the ones we began class with, I’m not convinced it is accurate to include the idea of spontaneous output. There are so many factors that affect our nervous system that it seems unlikely that any behavior of the nervous system would happen without at least some sort of input. 

 The two examples of outputs for the sake of getting inputs that I can remember were flirting and breathing. I don’t think either of those could occur without some input first. People tend to flirt with someone they find attractive in some way, even if they don’t realize it consciously. Input: That person is attractive. Output: Flirt. The same thing is true of breathing. Even though we can breathe both voluntarily and involuntarily, the process is driven by a need to exchange gasses in the body. Input: I need oxygen. Output: Inhale. Input: I need to get rid of carbon dioxide. Output: Exhale. Both flirting and breathing can operate as part of feedback loops of the nervous system, but I remain unconvinced that the outputs can occur spontaneously. That is, I think that the loops ultimately begin with an input. I’m willing to believe that it is possible for some outputs of the nervous system to happen without input, but I will need to see some better examples.

 On a different note, I saw this video awhile ago and I thought of it during our discussion of the structure of the brain. It’s amazing what mice can teach us about our own brains! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li5nMsXg1Lk

I found our conversation about the evolving model of the nervous system to be very interesting this week. Although I love simplicity and I believe these evolving models heighten our understanding of the nervous system, I feel it is impossible to make a correct model of the nervous system. We can’t restrict our nervous system to a model with inputs, boxes, arrows, and outputs. As we mentioned in class there are some outputs that have no external input. One topic we mentioned in class is the idea that the nervous system can create its own loop cycle of inputs and outputs. Like mcchen, I am also confused about what originally stimulated the nervous system to create an input. What caused the nervous system to originally create this input?   

 I also found our discussion about the neural similarities between invertebrates on the microscopic level very interesting. I was at first very surprised to hear that our neurons are very similar to the neurons of frogs and other invertebrates.  How can two organisms that act so differently have such a similarity? I think this further helps support the idea that even though our neurons are the same the way that they are put together is different.  

I read that the brain uses 70% of the body's glucose, which is one of the body's main source of chemical energy. This, to me, implies that interneurons are largely responsible for the brain:body ratio of glucose energy usage, which goes along with the boxes in boxes theory of the brain. This makes sense because the brain oversees the rest of the body. So I am wondering if someone who exercises their mind significantly more than another will "burn" significantly more glucose (can this be of interest to those looking to lose weight?), and if it's mental toil that does this, how much do mental struggles such as mood disorders influence the brain's glucose usage? What about intense dreams?

I googled "brain burn calories" and read this http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/science/02qna.html . It seemed logical until I read this section:

"'There are good, sophisticated studies that show that concentrated mental activity, like doing a difficult multiplication problem in your head, increases the glucose uptake to the brain,' he [Dr. Levitsky] said. By how many calories? Less than, say, 20 calories of the 300, he estimated.
But you do not engage that long in such an activity, he said, so the difference might amount to only about 10 calories a day. That means thinking hard is not a good way to lose weight."
I don't know how much time he means by "that long", but I think that students, for example, probably do engage in difficult problem solving at least a few hours everyday when learning new concepts in class and working through homework problems or readings. So maybe students could lose weight this way.

        It was interesting to learn about the nervous system as a system of boxes.   I found the examples using crickets very helpful once it came time to relate them to the different possibilities the nervous system was capable of (such as taking in inputs with no outputs). Also, the fact that the frog brain was so similar to the human brain was amusing because when I think of a human brain, I would have never thought of comparing it to an amphibian’s brain. This does bring up the important point that the key difference between frogs and humans is how the building blocks are arranged in the brain, which is also something that was new to me. I had originally thought that the building blocks were significantly different from animal to animal, so the positioning of the building blocks wouldn’t matter much.   This makes me wonder how many more animals there are with brains that have similar building blocks to the human brain.

       Also, the point about an isolated nervous system having the capability of producing outputs was surprising to hear about in class. It is fascinating that even though we may not see a particular output, the nervous system is still able to generate it. This somehow reminded me of a recent finding that I read about in which brain activity was detected in some patients that are in a vegetative state. Despite the fact that they are unable to even blink their eyes, the patients’ brains were conscious. The technicians that took part in the research would instruct the patients clearly to “Imagine you are playing tennis” while they would scan their brains. For some patients, the brain scans showed nothing. However, for others, their brain scans would flash just as a normal and healthy human brain would as a response to the question. Basically, some patients in a vegetative state were found to respond with their thoughts and “living silently in their bodies.”

After Thursday’s discussion about the evolving model of the nervous system and the input/output loop, one of the points that really struck me was the idea that we all basically have the same “boxes” within “boxes” in our head, yet the creative differences between individuals is so vast.  It’s mind boggling to think that the connections between these boxes are what make our thought processes different.  On the larger scale, all of our varying thought processes contribute to a community of thinking that in essence creates a culture. I guess this all comes back to Emily Dickinson’s poem which illustrates how everything has come out of thought and the brain. Social constructs and social norms that seem to invisibly govern our life have arisen from our collective thoughts. But what I find interesting, is that so many of our grand explorations, discoveries, and works of art, things that have progressed human race, have come from creative people who have diverged from these norms of thought. Isn’t it crazy to think that everything that we have constructed in this world has come from the varying connections and circuits in our brain and nervous system?

   So, this week we all saw the brain that Professor Grobstein took out of a lunch box, and carried around during class.  After hearing the story about how difficult it is to obtain a brain, I started to think why most scientists would want or need one.  In the case of our class, we got to look at the exterior of this brain.  We then learned that all of the convolutions on the exterior of the brain were not really the important "boxes" that we were interested in.  So, we didn't get to see the important "boxes."  Besides being cool, is there really any reason that our neurobiology class can learn from seeing a human brain?  

   If we tried to apply our evolving model of the nervous system to a real human brain (while whole), would we get anywhere?  To me, it seems that having a whole human brain doesn't correlate at all to our evolving model of the nervous system.  They seem completely separate, to the point where I am just imagining how the nervous system really operates out of the brain?  

   Perhaps part of the problem is that there are so many tiny connections, I can't make sense of the map.  To me, the heart makes sense because each major artery and vein has its own name.  The superior vena cava, or coronary artery is like Interstate 80 or 95 in that I can locate them.  Then there smaller back roads without names, and I can stand leaving them anonymous because I have a general idea of where the major connections are, and how they make the heart function.  But to me, the brain still seems like gook because there are no interstates for me to map.  Everything seems tiny and shuffled and scattered in the brain. 

             The current model that we have for the brain is definitely ‘less wrong’ than our previous models. We can say with some certainty that there are some outputs that have no stimulus and some inputs that don’t give a response (e.g. when the female crickets don’t respond to the male’s song on some occasions).  The modern model reflects these ideas. The part of this that strikes me as strange is that it seemingly redefines the idea of thinking, and consequently, may redefine the idea of life. If a brain can give off electrical signals without any stimulus, it implies that it can think without any stimulus. We have also seen that if we place a brain (that is kept healthy) in a dish, or some sort of environment that is not attached to the life form that it came from, the brain still gives off electrical signals. Clearly this brain is no longer a part of anything, but yet it can still signal-it can still think. This means two things to me:

            First off all, it the brain can “think,” or at least give off activity in the absence of a body, then perhaps that means that it is the brain, and no other mechanism, that determines who we are. Granted, the body would be necessary for more complex forms of thinking that would, for example, involve inputs, but if it isn’t necessary for the most basic type of thinking, then that could mean that no soul or other external mechanism would be necessary either. This could be a big leap, but that is what it implies to me.

            Secondly, if the brain still has minimal activity without the body, at what point can we say that something is still living or has stopped living? Most people would probably say that a brain without a body-activity or no activity-isn’t really living. But what if that brain, at the same activity level, is inside a body? Does it really make that much of a difference? In a sense, the body is just another container. It is certainly more complex than a dish, but it is a container nevertheless. So if someone has minimal brain activity, or if he or she is in a vegetative state, is it fair to say that he or she is still living? This is an important ethical question, because if we say that that person is definitely alive, even if he or she needs artificial respiration, then it is our job to keep that person alive. But if we don't think that this amount of activity amounts to life, then it would be best to have that person “let go.” In other words, where do we draw the line? What should the definition of life be?

            So like all of the previous definitions of the brain, though this model is less wrong than all of the models that came before, it poses some new, difficult questions. What is thinking and what is life? Hopefully we will develop less confusing and less wrong answers in the future. 

 Hello everyone so on Tuesday we talked about Emily Dickinson and how she is still alive due to her writing and our brain remembering her name. But what about all of those people we don't remember, whose names we have forgotten or do not know. Are they completely dead because we don't remember them or still alive in the sense that they are the unnamed people that we try to figure who they are. I don't know if I'm making any sense but i read this article about the youngest boy that died during WWII. That through records of his sister they figured his age and name and now fully know his story and contribution to WWII as a ships boy. Now knowing his name they were able to place a gravestone with his name so that his resting place is recognized throughout all of the many lost soldiers that some we still don't know who they are. And now that we have figured his name, where he rests, his story, has this boy come back from the "dead" or has he always been alive. 

Otherwise our other discussion about the nervous system was great. I enjoyed reviewing the nervous system and placing them all in boxes that are within boxes that are within boxes. Although of course like Lauren and probably others I'm am totally confused about outputs being created to get inputs. How do these outputs get started? Are they random or controlled or just a mixture of both? What usually occurs when outputs begin inputs or the general processes that these outputs are used for? Can't wait to find out more, hopefully answer some of these questions but i guess we'll see if there really is a less wrong answer.